Is a New Principle Necessary to Resolve Quantum Gravity and Unify Interactions?

[MTd2]

My goal is just to understand you Seriously.

 

[MTd2]

I really wish to understand. It is interesting, something there caught my attention.

 

[arivero]

But where is the problem? Try to be longer when writting your objections, or try to go again across al my posts then. Perhaps the problem is that you kept trying to guess what I am aiming too, while I am simply pointing out a fact of the Standard Model, and keeping agnostic abut the interpretation of this fact.

So the question is, your problem is about the facts or about its interpretation?

 

[MTd2]

The problem is with both of them. What is the objective in getting scalar duals if they are not related to gauge fields?

In my mind, the patter I was seeing was that instead of supersymmetry in terms of bosons/fermions you were getting a super charge symmetry between "fermionic charges" u,d,s,c,b (like preons combining) and "bosonic charges", red,green,blue, "white"(the null color charge of the leptons),Y. I guess this is just wishful thinking, then.

 

[arivero]

I see. On one side, you kept suspecting that there is more structure involved. I suspect it too, and more now that we have involved the scalars in the gauge supermultiplets, as this is an extra condition ovedetermining the equations.

On other side, it seems you keep trying to close everything only about the udscb. This is reasonable, because our principle was that given that the yukawa coupling of these five quarks is mass-protected, we should find a symmetry between them, justifying this mass protection. But it doesn't work.

What we have found, and that is the surprising fact, is that flavour on these five quarks in fact builds again, not the original five, but all [the partners of] the six quarks, the leptons, and really all the bosons you should expect in susy. So perhaps we have failed in our try of mass protecting "universidad de california, santa barbara", but we have found a strange beast.

 

[arivero]

I suspect it too, and more now that we have involved the scalars in the gauge supermultiplets, as this is an extra condition overdetermining the equations.

Let me clarify this statement with a minimum of group theory. Giving g generations with r+s massless (or light, or mass-protected) quarks, of those r are of type up and s are of type down, we ask:

2 g = s s(+1) / 2 matching of ups
2 g = 2 r s matching of downs

and we have two extra
4 g = (r+s)(r+s+1)/2 (matching of all the leptons wit all the "pions")
3 = r (r+1) /2 chiral matching of the W and Z scalar partners.

So we have four independent equations and only three unknowns. The last one is the one we have discovered during this thread.

 

[MTd2]

What we have found, and that is the surprising fact, is that flavour on these five quarks in fact builds again, not the original five, but all [the partners of] the six quarks, the leptons, and really all the bosons you should expect in susy.

But this what I was talking about! These guys seem to be "fermionic charges", something like preons, that build fermions and they do not seem to be like partners at all. There is supersymmetry, but it is in the equivalence of the 5 "charges" used to build the fermions and the 5 charges carried by forces (bosons).

 

[arivero]

But this what I was talking about! These guys seem to be "fermionic charges", something like preons, that build fermions and they do not seem to be like partners at all. There is supersymmetry, but it is in the equivalence of the 5 "charges" used to build the fermions and the 5 charges carried by forces (bosons).

There is a "relationship" between the need of 5 "preon charges" and the standard model bosons. But it does not coincide neither in charge nor in dof, so I am pretty sure it is a more complicated relationship, not just supersimetry. On the other hand, the composites of these "ucsdb" happen to be exactly the same number AND CHARGES that the SM.

As I see, you don't have any problem understanding what I say, you have problems interpreting it. So I have, of course so I think we can call an stop here, until new ideas come.

 

[inflector]

NOTE: I should preface all this with the caveat that I know enough only to be dangerous in discussions such as these and may have very big errors and holes in my understanding.

Addressing the original line of this thread as a newcomer to physics who does not understand the trees but has a pretty decent view of the forest—I think, only time will tell—I see two potentially interesting principles hinted at that might contribute to further progress:

1) The fundamental incompatibilities between the continuous and the discrete seems to me may be an artifact of our success hill-climbing two local peaks, neither of which represents the ultimate truth, but each of which when measured independently gives us greater insight into the mechanisms of our world than prior heights did. So I think we may have climbed as far as we can on these two peaks. This is just an impression, an intuition.

The attempts to resolve this problem also seem to me to be attempts to connect these two distant peaks directly, an attempt which bypasses the summit itself and only leads one down the ravine between the two peaks.

This is clearly a hard problem. The hardest one in physics, I believe.

This leads to the potential principle that perhaps the solution lies in a different reality, not in the EITHER OR of "discrete OR continuous" but in the AND of "discrete AND continuous" at all scales. Perhaps the apparent non-locality of QM is simply a manifestation of the continuous nature of reality at the quantum level which is not apparent at this point? Perhaps the problems with GR and cosmic-scale gravity and/or missing mass is really due to some cosmic-scale discrete effects which we don't understand at this point?

2) The holographic principle can serve as a guide to a broader principle, it seems to me, so when I see tom's comment:

Holography today is - in my opinion - like scratching at the surface hiding a fundamental principle still to be fully understood; like Mach's principle was a guideline for Einstein which did not made to a fundamental principle in GR (... he must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it ...); nevertheless holography is certainly some aspect of reality b/c it shows up in so different approaches so that it's hard to deny that there is something fundamental behind it.

...

So for me holography is a concept or a guideline pointing towards a fundamental principle, whereas gravitons are a rather limit calculational tool valid only in a rather limited regime.

I can't help but agree completely. I have one idea for how this principle might be expanded to broaden the scope of potential solutions to quantum gravity issues:

In particular, the holographic principle is a mapping from a higher-dimensional representation to a lower dimensional surface, the volume of a space to its boundary, the event horizon of a black hole with the informational content of the interior, etc. It seems like physics sees this mapping in one direction only. A mapping in the other direction seems just as valid and might be more fruitful.

For instance, one could also see our perceived 3+1 dimensional world as a holographic image of a higher dimensional reality, 4+1 perhaps. Or perhaps a slice of that higher-dimensional reality. So the holographic principle maybe leads us to a broader principle that tells us to stop thinking in terms of our current dimensions, and broaden our minds a bit. Perhaps thinking of time as the 4th dimension was a great mathematical simplification but a conceptual roadblock. Perhaps the 4th spatial dimension, if it exists, is not compact or rolled up but expansive and we ourselves live in a kind of moving holographic reduction of that higher dimensional reality.